You don't seem to understand what I'm saying and you are stuck with blind text following, which was NOT was Shinran was about. But all this 'dare you, you slander the Dharma' stuff doesn't interest me and I don't consider this to be a good basis for any debate here. I've written many postings here where you can easily see what my standpoint is and how I relate that to Shinrans teachings. The point I wanted to make is better expressed by Al Bloom here :

Shinran's religious experience loses intensity and drama when it is considered only as arising from contact with Buddhist teachings - for example, from the reading of a sutra or text. To the contrary, his thought gains in universal importance because it arose from a sensitized awareness of the true nature of man. Shinran did not merely contemplate ideas. Rather, he confronted himself and as a consequence, had to seek a new path. (...)This fundamental insight manifested by Shinran was not derived simply from sacred texts and traditions, but was, perhaps, grounded in tradition in the contemplation of Nature itself and the influence of the doctrine of Primordial Enlightenment of the Tendai sect. (Alfred Bloom)

Anyway, feel free to consider right and wrong whatever you wish. As was said previously here what I said is how Shinshu is presented in Canada (and there are many teachers not only in Canada, who say the same things) so they are all slandering the Dharma and don't know that Shinshu is Mahayana?

Anyway, feel free to consider right and wrong whatever you wish. As was said previously here what I said is how Shinshu is presented in Canada (and there are many teachers not only in Canada, who say the same things) so they are all slandering the Dharma and don't know that Shinshu is Mahayana?

Gassho

Andreas

Yes. Since it is the reason why I don't really associate myself with Jodo Shinshu anymore. Jodo Shinshu is a beautiful tradition but it is being polluted by some materialistic scholars/priests. Any way, I don't really have interest in debate either. You have your way of looking at texts and I have mine.

Jodo Shinshu is a beautiful tradition but it is being polluted by some materialistic scholars/priests.

No, it's actually being prevented from reaching more people in the West by some followers who would make perfect Christians with their narrow literal understanding of written texts. Turning Buddhism into a dead 'religion of the book' is contrary to what the Dharma really is about - it's a living dynamic path of growing insight based on a long tradition of experience by seekers that leads to compassion and self-reflection that can transcend the ego idea and therefore is able to lessen or even stop suffering. That is what Shinran was about and how he read and interpreted the 'holy texts' is evidence enough that he was about living experience and not interested in a simple literal understanding. We shouldn't forget that in his time Honens Nembutsu teaching was considered to be pure heresy but Shinran did choose his experience and felt that this was something Honen was addressing in his teachings. Without that particular approach he wouldn't have been able to give us this totally new interpretation of Pure Land teachings because just following what 'is written' is a dead end in itself. For him personal experience came first and then he tried to integrate what he experienced, knew and felt in his heart into the traditional texts. That's why he developed a certain interpretation based on the idea that there are two levels of understanding of these texts, the implicit and explicit meaning. He was harmonizing his view based on his experience of Shinjin with the traditional texts, using the traditional images and words, to express a new insight - not using the text as a mere template to canalize and therefore constraining his life-changing experience. It's beyond me how people who actually bother to read Shinrans works so often try to turn him into a simpleton.

There are two problems with a symbolic interpretation: it makes Shinshu a path of salvation without any need for personal enlightenment, since in this life there is no effort, no development, and in the next there is no place to practice but instant liberation. The second problem is the lack of actual sources for this interpretation in the written teachings of Shinran.

"There is no such thing as the real mind. Ridding yourself of delusion: that's the real mind."(Sheng-yen: Getting the Buddha Mind, p 73)

There are two problems with a symbolic interpretation: it makes Shinshu a path of salvation without any need for personal enlightenment, since in this life there is no effort, no development, and in the next there is no place to practice but instant liberation.

You tend to use narrowing terms all the time which is actually limiting the possibilities of understanding. I would call it a non-literal interpretation, which means it's open to many levels of insight and rooted in personal experience. However you may call it though, I don't get your point really. Yes, in this life there's no effort, if we mean self-effort; there's no development, if we mean a progress towards liberation based on what we could do as human beings; and yes, there's no 'next life' after this if you have been grasped by Amida realizing Shinjin, at least not as just another part of the samsaric cycle. Because you are destined to the attainment of enlightenment (which is what becomes a reality in the here and now by experiencing Shinjin) it will happen naturally without any effort (Jinen) and so there's no need for any 'place to practice'. You simply can not overcome your traditional Pure Land understanding, which is also clear by reading your responses to Dr. Alfred Blooms emails. Only because of this the above mentioned 'problem' comes up.

The second problem is the lack of actual sources for this interpretation in the written teachings of Shinran.

Again, you yourself gave the link to our old debate here on this forum and you received several replies by Dr. Alfred Bloom about this. He tried to explain why he and many other highly valued Shinshu teachers have a different (non-literal and more open) understanding than you (you said that for you Shinran is just telling what every Pure Land master before him said, so nothing new here). He obviously couldn't convince you and I can't do that either. If you still think there's a lack of actual sources for this interpretation, then I don't know what to say. I have studied Shinran for quite a while now and what these Shin teachers say pretty much is what I understood while reading Shinrans works as well. As you said, we have that older thread and I don't see much sense in repeating everything over and over again since my opinion is still the same on every single point we discussed there. If you say that we have no base for this interpretaion in Shinrans writings you are mistaken, Al Bloom explained very well why he thinks this interpretation is a valid one. Like I said in that old thread:

Shinran used his language and we use our own. If you read Shinrans writings though you should be able to see what he thought and how he went beyond words and literal understandings and traditional images. Going beyond the literal word is what we know as a mythical or metaphorical understanding.

If you are not able to see how he went beyond this narrow literal understanding of these texts, beyond the single words and traditional images with their 'known' meanings, then nothing one could say would change your view anyway.